Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal judgments

The CESTAT Bangalore holds that radio taxi aggregators providing mere connectivity between drivers and customers before March 2016 do not fall under 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' for service tax purposes.

The Tribunal holds that bagasse and press mud are agricultural waste, not manufactured goods, rendering Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules inapplicable. No duty or penalty can be levied.

CESTAT clarifies that customs brokers must advise clients and report misdeclarations under Regulation 13(d); failure constitutes violation even without intent.

The CETAT holds that Cenvat credit is permissible on capital goods used for providing taxable services, not just manufacture, clarifying eligibility for storage tanks and fabrication inputs.

CII case establishes that facilitation of member participation in overseas exhibitions under mutuality principle is not taxable service under Service Tax regime.

CESTAT Bangalore holds that manufacturer incentives to authorized dealers are trade discounts, not consideration for service, exempting them from service tax under Business Auxiliary Service.

Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that mere misclassification of goods without fraud or willful suppression does not justify penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

The Customs Tribunal holds that thermal printers designed for diagnostic medical imaging fall under CTH 9018, not 8443, establishing key principles for medical device classification.

The CESTAT holds that Rule 26(2) penalties under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 apply only to natural persons, not corporate entities, reinforcing the principle of personal culpability in tax evasion.

The Tribunal holds that revenue must prove delivery of orders via Speed Post with acknowledgment; mere dispatch is insufficient to trigger limitation period.

The CETAT holds that allegations of clandestine removal under the Central Excise Act cannot be sustained on third-party records alone; corroborative evidence is mandatory.

The CETAT holds that customs authorities cannot demand duty or impose penalties under Section 28AAA unless DGFT has first cancelled export incentive scrips. Key precedent for exporters and brokers.

The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that a Customs Broker cannot be penalized for employee misconduct unless the employer benefited or authorized the act, reinforcing proportionality and due process.

The Customs Tribunal holds that recipient cannot be penalized for service provider's erroneous tax classification; Cenvat credit valid if tax was paid and accepted by authorities.

The Customs Tribunal holds that partially cooked ready rotis retain the essential character of bread, classifying them under NIL duty heading 1905 90 90, overturning demand for excise duty.

CESTAT Chennai holds that service exports paid in Indian Rupees via authorized Vostro accounts satisfy convertible foreign exchange requirements under Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules, 2005.

The Tribunal holds that once a resolution plan is approved under IBC, statutory dues not included are extinguished, and tax appeals must cease unless expressly permitted.

The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that goods unfit for original use due to off-spec composition qualify as waste and scrap under Section Note 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, regardless of chemical makeup.

CESTAT Kolkata holds that service tax demands cannot be sustained merely on Form 26AS or income tax returns without proof of taxable service, recipient, and consideration.

The CESTAT holds that unutilized CENVAT credit for exported services cannot be denied during refund claims due to minor invoice irregularities if the credit was not contested at the time of availing it.

The Tribunal holds that Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices is valid where no suppression is proven, clarifying Rule 9(1)(b) applicability in GST excise matters.

CESTAT Mumbai holds that clarificatory CBIC circulars favoring taxpayers apply retrospectively, setting aside demand for differential IGST on poultry machinery parts.

CESTAT Chandigarh upholds admissibility of weighted average deductions for post-manufacturing expenses, affirming binding precedent and rejecting repeated demands.

Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act requires specific allegations of knowledge or intent; mere regulatory breach insufficient.